The Hearing Officer began with a review of the opponents' claim of reputation; he applied his resultant findings as appropriate in his later detailed considerations.

The objection under Section 3(1)(a) was dismissed as the Hearing Officer did not agree that the mark, even if objectionable on other grounds, was of such a nature that it could never act as a trade mark.

Having considered the mark as a whole the Hearing Officer was of the view that the sign was a promotional message and identified characteristics of services relating to travel and costing less. In the absence of acquired distinctiveness it was devoid of any distinctiveness. Registration would be contrary to Section 3(1)(b); the mark was therefore refused in its entirety and the Hearing Officer did not go on to consider the matter under Section 3(1)(c).

There was no evidence of reputation supporting the opponents’ claim under Section 5(3); this ground was dismissed.

The opponents' mark was TRAVEL 4. There was a degree of similarity in the marks, and in some of the services. In the result the Hearing Officer upheld the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) in respect of Classes 39 & 42.

The opposition under Section 5(4)(a) was also upheld in respect of the Class 39 & Class 42 specifications and dismissed in respect of Class 35 & Class 41.